CB, I have always enjoyed reading your posts: you have a very diagonal slash'ish style and a spirit of doggedness that is a commendable mode of inquiry. Your contribution to this particular thread are not only on the dot but also help clarify the issue for someone (such as myself) who are equally curious about the motivation and goals of the so-called "debunkers". Good show!
You had asked about the position of the "debunkers" -- I think they (some of them (*)) do not [necessarily] have positions and are happy to just "debunk" and let things fall as they may. Perhaps a "Look how smart I am" exercise: there was a recent book by an economist, filled with adulatory self-references, called Freakonomics, which "debunked" many popular notions. The author took great pleasure, IIRC, in not only helping identify teachers who "cheated" on scoring (to keep up with the "No Child Left Behind" requirements?), but being around in person to watch them get fired. Not surprisingly, I am told many of the claims and analysis of the book (and its author) have now been "debunked".
--ravi
(*) some of the supporters -- our own Doug Henwood -- of debunkers, have oher legitimate axes to grind: I am guessing the domination of WBAI by these 9/11 alternate stories which are poorly reasoned and reflect badly on the station and those it represents. Both "conspiracy mongering" and "debunking" as activities internal to the left, when time permits, are not necessarily, IMHO, a bad thing.